Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-14-2016, 03:10 PM
 
19,137 posts, read 25,349,686 times
Reputation: 25444

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzsaz View Post
So, if you worked for the state you didn't pay into social security because you were promised a pension.
Also, let's not forget that Christie Whitman was the first to screw NJ public employees. Chris Christie followed in her broomstick (I mean footsteps).

Yes, it is true that Christine Todd Whitman (alias, Madame Deficit) originated the concept in NJ that public employees are inherently evil and that it was not just permissible, but that it was actually justified, to "screw" them. However, you then you proceeded to go totally off the rails with that erroneous comment about Social Security contributions.

Where did you get the spurious idea that state (and county, and municipal) employees don't have to "pay into Social Security"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-14-2016, 05:48 PM
 
3,617 posts, read 3,886,720 times
Reputation: 2295
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ View Post
when there is a shortfall in the money that exists for the public entity to pay out benefits; they should be forced to go bankrupt and renegotiate terms. taking on existing debt or raising taxes shouldnt be an option.
Really the shortfall shouldn't have been allowed to exist in the first place.

Politicians can make public sector unions happy by giving them richer benefits or avoid a fight with them by not cutting them while not putting in an adequate contribution and hey, they'll be out of office before you have a funding crisis. No good; we should be fully funding any promises when they are incurred which will force either immediate tax increases or reduced pension promises immediately preventing a crisis and making politicians and ultimately voters choose rather than kicking the can.

Of course, that would have been great in theory but what happened is politicians offered overgenerous pensions to workers while not raising the taxes to fund them for decades and now there's a gap that needs to be closed. There are moral imperatives both ways -- the total compensation including those pensions was inflated by captured politicians above the free market wages most taxpayers are being taxed on on the one hand, and on the other there are a lot of state retirees who saved nothing for retirement beyond those pensions. Anyway, it's a very good thing for NJ's solvency that this went through -- although it will hurt for the recipients when inflation picks back up from the low levels of the last 5 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:




Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:46 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top